Abstract
Recently, replacing chemical fertilizers with straw returning and new fertilizers has received considerable attention in the agricultural sector, as it is believed to increase rice yield and improve soil properties. However, less is known about rice growth and soil properties in paddy fields with the addition of different fertilizers. Thus, in this paper, we investigated the effects of different fertilizer treatments, including no fertilization (CK), optimized fertilization based on the medium yield recommended fertilizer amount (OF), 4.50 Mg ha−1 straw returning with chemical fertilizers (SF), 0.59 Mg ha−1 slow-release fertilizer with chemical fertilizers (SRF), and 0.60 Mg ha−1 water-soluble fertilizer with chemical fertilizers (WSF), on rice growth, yield, and soil properties through a field experiment. The results show that compared with the OF treatment, the new SF, SRF, and WSF treatments increased plant height, main root length, tiller number, leaf area index, chlorophyll content, and aboveground dry weight. The SF, SRF, and WSF treatments improved rice grain yield by 30.65–32.51% and 0.24–1.66% compared to the CK and OF treatments, respectively. The SRF treatment increased nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) uptake by 18.78% and 28.68%, the harvest indexes of N and P by 1.75% and 0.59%, and the partial productivity of N and P by 2.64% and 2.63%, respectively, compared with the OF treatment. However, fertilization did not significantly affect the average yield, harvest indexes of N and P, and partial productivity of N and P. The contents of TN, AN, SOM, TP, AP, and AK across all the treatments decreased significantly with increasing soil depth, while soil pH increased with soil depth. The SF treatment could more effectively increase soil pH and NH4+-N content compared to the SRF and WSF treatments, while the SRF treatment could greatly enhance other soil nutrients and enzyme activities compared to the SF and WSF treatments. A correlation analysis showed that rice yield was significantly positively associated with tiller number, leaf area index, chlorophyll, soil NO3−-N, NH4+-N, SOM, TP, AK, and soil enzyme activity. The experimental results indicate that SRF was the best fertilization method to improve rice growth and yield and enhance soil properties, followed by the SF, WSF, and OF treatments. Hence, the results provide useful information for better fertilization management in the Chaohu Lake region of China.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 19
Claim · model-written summary
SF increased rice growth traits relative to OF.
- Treatment
- SFe0
- Outcome
- plant height, main root length, tiller numbere0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- OF treatmente0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“compared with the OF treatment, the new SF, SRF, and WSF treatments increased plant height, main root length, tiller number, leaf area index, chlorophyll content, and aboveground dry weight”
Claim · model-written summary
SRF increased rice growth traits relative to OF.
- Treatment
- SRFe0
- Outcome
- leaf area index, chlorophyll content, and aboveground dry weighte0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- OF treatmente0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“compared with the OF treatment, the new SF, SRF, and WSF treatments increased plant height, main root length, tiller number, leaf area index, chlorophyll content, and aboveground dry weight”
Claim · model-written summary
WSF increased rice growth traits relative to OF.
- Treatment
- WSFe0
- Outcome
- plant height, main root length, tiller numbere0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- OF treatmente0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“compared with the OF treatment, the new SF, SRF, and WSF treatments increased plant height, main root length, tiller number, leaf area index, chlorophyll content, and aboveground dry weight”
Claim · model-written summary
SF, SRF and WSF raised rice grain yield by 30.65–32.51% relative to CK.
- Taxon
- rice
Oryza sativae0 - Treatment
- SF, SRF, and WSF treatmentse0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Value
- 30.65–32.51%e0
- Comparator
- CKe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The SF, SRF, and WSF treatments improved rice grain yield by 30.65–32.51% and 0.24–1.66% compared to the CK and OF treatments, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
SF, SRF and WSF raised rice grain yield by 0.24–1.66% relative to OF.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae0
- Treatment
- SF, SRF, and WSF treatmentse0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Value
- 0.24–1.66%e0
- Comparator
- OF treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The SF, SRF, and WSF treatments improved rice grain yield by 30.65–32.51% and 0.24–1.66% compared to the CK and OF treatments, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
SRF raised nitrogen uptake by 18.78% relative to OF.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“The SRF treatment increased nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) uptake by 18.78% and 28.68%”
Claim · model-written summary
SRF raised phosphorus uptake by 28.68% relative to OF.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“The SRF treatment increased nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) uptake by 18.78% and 28.68%”
Claim · model-written summary
SRF raised nitrogen harvest index by 1.75% relative to OF.
Not reportedTaxonTreatmentComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“the harvest indexes of N and P by 1.75% and 0.59%”
Claim · model-written summary
SRF raised phosphorus harvest index by 0.59% relative to OF.
Not reportedTaxonTreatmentComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“the harvest indexes of N and P by 1.75% and 0.59%”
Claim · model-written summary
SRF raised nitrogen partial productivity by 2.64% relative to OF.
Not reportedTaxonTreatmentDirection
Verbatim
e0“the partial productivity of N and P by 2.64% and 2.63%, respectively, compared with the OF treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
SRF raised phosphorus partial productivity by 2.63% relative to OF.
Not reportedTaxonTreatmentDirection
Verbatim
e0“the partial productivity of N and P by 2.64% and 2.63%, respectively, compared with the OF treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Fertilization did not significantly affect mean yield and nitrogen and phosphorus harvest indexes or partial productivity.
- Treatment
- fertilizatione0
- Outcome
- average yield, harvest indexes of N and P, and partial productivity of N and Pe0
- Direction
- did not significantly affecte0
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“fertilization did not significantly affect the average yield, harvest indexes of N and P, and partial productivity of N and P”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil TN, AN and SOM decreased with soil depth.
Not reportedTaxonOrgan / stageSetting
Verbatim
e0“The contents of TN, AN, SOM, TP, AP, and AK across all the treatments decreased significantly with increasing soil depth”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil TP, AP and AK decreased with soil depth.
Not reportedTaxonSetting
Verbatim
e0“The contents of TN, AN, SOM, TP, AP, and AK across all the treatments decreased significantly with increasing soil depth”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil pH increased with soil depth.
Not reportedTaxonSetting
Verbatim
e0“soil pH increased with soil depth”
Claim · model-written summary
SF increased soil pH and ammonium nitrogen more than SRF and WSF.
- Treatment
- SF treatmente0
- Outcome
- soil pH and NH4+-N contente0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Comparator
- SRF and WSF treatmentse0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“The SF treatment could more effectively increase soil pH and NH4+-N content compared to the SRF and WSF treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
SRF enhanced other soil nutrients and enzyme activities more than SF and WSF.
- Treatment
- SRF treatmente0
- Outcome
- other soil nutrients and enzyme activitiese0
- Direction
- enhancee0
- Comparator
- SF and WSF treatmentse0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“the SRF treatment could greatly enhance other soil nutrients and enzyme activities compared to the SF and WSF treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Rice yield was positively associated with growth traits and soil nutrient and enzyme measures.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- positively associatede0
- Qualifier
- tiller number, leaf area index, chlorophyll, soil NO3−-N, NH4+-N, SOM, TP, AK, and soil enzyme activitye0
Not reportedOrgan / stage
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“rice yield was significantly positively associated with tiller number, leaf area index, chlorophyll, soil NO3−-N, NH4+-N, SOM, TP, AK, and soil enzyme activity”
Claim · model-written summary
SRF ranked best for rice growth, yield and soil properties, followed by SF, WSF and OF.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae0
- Treatment
- SRFe0
- Outcome
- improve rice growth and yield and enhance soil propertiese0
- Comparator
- SF, WSF, and OF treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“SRF was the best fertilization method to improve rice growth and yield and enhance soil properties, followed by the SF, WSF, and OF treatments”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · soil: biology · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
87 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
95 papers more in this group
See all 99 papers →fertilization · physiology: pigments · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
114 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
120 papers more in this group
See all 124 papers →fertilization · nutrient: content · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
931 papers in the same direction as this paper · 56 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
989 papers more in this group
See all 993 papers →fertilization · yield · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
3,182 papers in the same direction as this paper · 207 in the opposite direction · 65 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
3,451 papers more in this group
See all 3,455 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.